Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Black Rose Anarchist Federation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the available sourcing does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations. Many of the Keep comments cite considerations outside the notability guidelines. While these aren't inherently illegitimate it is harder for these to overcome comments which do draw on notability. Hut 8.5 21:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Black Rose Anarchist Federation

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources. Vice doesn't cover them in any detail, one source confirms they were founded, that's it. Nothing better found on Google News. Huon ( talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Response to flagging this entry for deletion by the author: Below I have included numerous references in radio, mainstream press, and radical left printed and online publications. There are also existing references to the organization in the Platformism wikipedia entry and an entry for the group in the German language wikipedia. The existence of the organization is well established and the wide variety of sources, media, and websites all confirm this.

Wikipedia reference: Platformism: Group is listed in Platformism Today section: "Black Rose Anarchist Federation/Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN)[13]' in the United States," /info/en/?search=Platformism

German Wikipedia entry on Black Rose Anarchist Federation: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rose_Anarchist_Federation

Media references: The Final Straw Radio Podcast: "This week we spoke with Romina and César, who are two members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation in LA." https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2017/03/05/i-dont-know-about-yall-but-im-in-it-to-win-it-a-conversation-with-black-rose-anarchist-federation-in-l-a/

Free Flow on KCHUNG in Los Angeles. Listen 1:00-1:05 for introduction for Romina Akemi, a member of Black Rose on her piece "Breaking the Waves" discussing anarchist feminism. http://lacarchive.com/item/free-flow-15

The Oregonian. May 3, 2017: "A member of Black Rose, a local anarchist group and one of the march's organizers, said on the organization's Facebook page that police use of force instigated violence that hadn't been happening." http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_may_day_march_organiz.html

The Oregonian. May 23, 2017. Op-Ed written by member: "Ayme S. Ueda is a member of the Portland Black Rose Anarchist Federation/Federacion Anarquista Rosa Negra. She lives in Southeast Portland." http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/05/may_day_protest_the_view_from.html

Writings Authored by members of BRRN: Truth Out author bio for Javier Sethness listing 10 published articles: "Javier Sethness is a libertarian socialist and health care provider, author of Imperiled Life: Revolution Against Climate Catastrophe, For a Free Nature: Critical Theory, Social Ecology, and Post-Developmentalism, and Eros and Revolution: The Critical Philosophy of Herbert Marcuse. He is a member of the Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, and his essays and articles have appeared in a number of radical publications. " http://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/45576

Truth Out author bio for Enrique Guerrero-Lopz list two published articles: "Enrique Guerrero-López is a member of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) and a participant in Solidarity Networks in Austin, Texas." http://www.truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/51280

"Breaking the Waves: Challenging the Liberal Tendency within Anarchist Feminism" By Romina Akemi and Bree Busk. Published in Perspective Journal No. 29, (Spring 2016), issue theme "Anarcha-Feminisms." See issue description: "It also includes a manifesto challenging liberal tendencies in anarchist feminism by two members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation writing from Chile, and drawing on South American militant movements" https://www.akpress.org/perspectivesonanarchisttheorymagazine.html See also full text of the article together with the author bios at the bottom: https://anarchiststudies.org/2016/06/29/breaking-the-waves-challenging-the-liberal-tendency-within-anarchist-feminism-by-romina-akemi-and-bree-busk/

Web series "No Borderd" that was sponsored by Black Rose:"No Borders, Social Struggles across the world (Sin Fronteras, La lucha social a través del mundo), is the name of a web series presenting experiences of social organizations and anti-capitalist resistance in different regions of the world. ... The first season of this web series was realized with the collaboration of Black Rose Anarchist Federation Locals (EEUU)" https://eng.surnegro.tv/third-chapter-social-struggles-boston/

Reposting of BRRN articles by similar radical left media pages:

It's Going Down https://itsgoingdown.org/author/black-rose-anarchist-federation/

libcom.org https://libcom.org/tags/black-rose-anarchist-federation

Social Media: See Facebook page with 26,000 followers: https://www.facebook.com/BRRNfed/

Other references: Rational Wiki listing of current anarchist organizations: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_organizations

Left Forum 2017 Left Forum 2017 Exhibitors: https://www.leftforum.org/left-forum-2017-exhibitors

Cali1155 ( talk) 01:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:RS to see what counts as a reliable source for establishing notability. Sources cannot be wikis (like Rational Wiki), social media (like Facebook), or self-published sources like an organisation's own web page or that of sister organisations, and news stories written by campaigners via campaigning websites won't normally count (unless they have rigorous editorial procedures and have a wide reputation for trustworthiness). You need to do more than prove the organisation exists (I don't think anyone disputes that): references must provide in-depth coverage, a couple of paragraphs at least specifically about the organisation. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Response to @Colapeninsula: I have read and understand the guidelines. I have also included additional links in the entry which show coverage of activities by external and non-campaigner websites. There are now five citations of non-campaigner news outlets that reference or discuss the group and it's activities including The College Fix, North Jersey, The Guardian, The Oregonian, and Vice News. But there are plenty of entries that list major and minor organizations on the left that do not seem to be held to the same criteria. Also there is an existing German language wiki entry on this organization. And the Platformism wiki page now links to this page. There is also wiki entry for [ Struggle] which merged into this group. You can verify this by looking at the archival website of the former group nefac.net

Next, take a look at the entry for the [ |International Socialist Organization], which is the one of the largest Trotskyist organizations in the US. All citations used for the sections for the Introduction, Ideology, and History (citations 1-19) all cite the organization, campaigner websites, or publications written by members of the organization. Even the citations in the Activities section mostly are either dead links, only mention the presence of the group at a demonstration or link to the organizations publication. Cali1155 ( talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Currently there are 8 citations linking to mainstream media that discuss the activities of the group and establish notability. These include The College Fix, North Jersey, WXXI News, TWC News, USA Today, The Guardian, The Oregonian, and Vice News. Cali1155 ( talk) 19:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - I am in favor of automatically keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to the size of the organization or its ideology. This is the sort of information that readers have a right to expect to be covered in a comprehensive, universal encyclopedia. If you want to file this under the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia), so be it. This does seem to be one of the leading anarchist organizations in the USA, for what it is worth, which is not to say that the group is large. Carrite ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States or delete. I'm not seeing any evidence that this org has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) In particular, the eight "mainstream media" citations above go into no detail about the org. They either mention Black Rose by name once without saying anything more or they don't go into any depth at all. Most of the sources, it seems appear to be about individual members rather than their actions in aggregate. This would be fine if the sources went into depth on those individual's actions as they pertain to the group or to the group's ideology, but I don't see them doing that either. Many of the sources are also affiliated with the members (primary sources, written by them) and thus can't be used to show how the org is notable in the independent press. The article's completely dependent on primary sources for basic details, and even with those removed, there's no reliable detail with which to do justice to the topic. Ping me if you have more sources, but I don't see the case for an separate article based on what stands. Anarchism in the United States is a mediocre target for redirection (bad sourcing) but the org is at least mentioned by name in the penultimate paragraph, while Common Struggle doesn't have reliable, secondary sourcing of its own. czar 01:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment If there is a German wiki article on the organization can anyone comment on whether there are foreign language sources to establish notability? Seraphim System ^(
talk) 02:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, they're all primary sources that don't establish notability czar 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG. Just WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable organisation; sources are primary or local. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment This is just a reminder that in deletion discussions like this (and also at AfC) you are asked to not make off-putting comments—the fact that something does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines does not make it inherently unremarkable. If inherently notable was the only criteria, then I would support inclusion, but we need independent secondary sources that speak to that inherent notability. In fact, editors have time and again been requested to explain carefully explain our notability guidelines precisely so new editors will understand the policy reasons for the decisions and not feel as though we are passing a judgment on the worth of their projects or work. Especially in a case like that, which appears to be a good faith attempt at article creation by a new editor (This editor made his first edit 4 days ago and it was to create this article.) A comment like " WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable organization" is unecessary Seraphim System ^(
talk) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment The mainstream media sources cited show a level of activity over several years and in various regions/cities in the US. By their nature far-left groups such as this are unlikely to give interviews providing details on their group such as membership figures, etc. Anarchism is a notable global political current in the far-left and this group does appear to be the largest and most active anarchist group within the US. I have reviewed the WP entries for numerous US-based far-left and socialist groups and nearly all could have the same criticisms apply such as most sources citing materials written by the organization and press coverage providing little detail on the actual group). But WP should be a resource and archive for helping the public better understand the histories and politics of these groups. Cali1155 ( talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately it's not that and editors who come to Wikipedia with an idea of what WP "should" be are usually asked to read WP:ADVOCACY Seraphim System ^(
talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Response I'm well aware of WP:ADVOCACY guidelines. WP:PILLARS states that articles should be written in a manner that documents and explains in a neutral tone and that WP combines aspects of an encyclopaedia, which “is a reference work or compendium providing a comprehensive summary of information … from a particular field.” And just as WP would have entries for the Republican and Democratic parties, providing a “comprehensive summary of information” is best fulfilled by including entries for minor parties such as the Libertarian, Green or Constitutional party and even regional parties that only exist in a single state. Cali1155 ( talk) 07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No in depth coverage fails WP:GNG-- Shrike ( talk) 09:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment The specific standard this article falls short of is the notability guideline for organizations, WP:ORG. The sources originally in the article, and those subsequently added, generally fall into one of three categories: Some are by Black Rose members, some are published on anarchist sites of dubious reliability, and those which were published by clearly reliable independent sources only mention the Black Rose Anarchist Federation in passing - those do not represent the depth of coverage we require (see WP:ORGDEPTH). Huon ( talk) 21:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Doubting the reliability of sources stemming from a specific political tendency simply for being of that tendency is an incredibly biased and subjective form of moderation. Also for the organization to be mentioned in passing makes sense for a political organization of a radical nature. Your standards are obviously biased and fail to recognize the circumstances in which such an org would not be forthcoming with things like membership stats etc. Together the 3 sets of sources provided illustrate a clear notability within the movement and within the locations they are active. — 2.84.9.161 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC). reply

Except even these mentions are trivial, lists of attendees and such. This is not enough to establish notability, as not even fellow anarchists consider them worthy of more then a couple of lines. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks WP:RS to establish notability - GretLomborg ( talk) 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete A lot of SPS sources, and a couple of trivial mentions in RS, sorry not seeing any notability here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States or delete. Please note that the French and Spanish language pages are actually for the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists which is already a redirect to Anarchism in the United States ! Leutha ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, or really anything at all that establishes notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: offers few WP:RS and gives no indication of passing WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 06:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Anarchism in the United States. Obviously anarchist groups are unlikely to get decent coverage in mainstream, reliable media outlets. This still presents a problem for us, because without such coverage we can't be sure that we are writing an accurate and balanced article. However, it might be a reasonable search term, and a redirect would be cheap and of assistance to our users. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC). reply
Keep - The sources provided illustrate at the very least notability within the anarchist movement and within the locations the organization operates. I think you all need to ask yourself if you are really holding this to an honest and meetable standard for a radical organization or if certain anti-anarchist sentiment is influencing your ideas. One comment above for example questions the reliability of anarchist sources, as if any source is inherently relatable and as if anarchist sources aren't a reasonable place to look for information on anarchist movements generally actively ignored in more mainstream outlets. The sources here allign closely and in many cases surpass the quality of sources for a wide variety of small political organizations and there should be a basic acknowledgement that the largest political organization for a notable tendency in radical though in the US warrants an article. — 2.84.9.161 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC). reply

I note that the first two "anarchist" sources are either a Trivial mention (and appears to be by members of the organisation, thus is not independent) or does not even seem to mention this group. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I will add that even the anarchist sources seem to largely just say "and Black Rose Anarchist Federation showed up", one sentence trivial mentions (in fact the largest just seems to be "they came, they listened, they left", about two lines). So there is no indepth coverage, even in dubious sources. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.